2017 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of value of assets by the Valuation Officer - whether the opportunity, statutory in nature as contemplated under sub-section (4), was granted to the petitioner? - Held that - On a perusal of the objection filed by the petitioner, we find that it is a four page objection bearing the signature of the petitioner and it is not known as to how and in what manner, and to whom it was submitted. In the first page in the left hand corner, the name in Hindi alongwith date 4.1.2017 is mentioned. However, there is no stamp of the Income Tax Department nor is there any proof of service of this letter on the Assistant Valuation Officer. We find that under sub-section (7) of Section 142A, when the Assessing Officer receives the Report, the Assessing Officer before taking cognizance of the report and acting on it, is again required to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, if the petitioner has any objection to the Valuation Report, he can again raise an objection to the Valuation Report before the Assessing Officer under the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 142A and, therefore, when such a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to raise objections to the Valuation Report, in the facts and circumstances of the case when there is serious dispute as to whether opportunity was granted to the petitioner or not, we see no reason to make any indulgence in the matter. Petitioner may raise the objections before the Assessing Officer, when the Assessing Officer proceeds with the assessment proceedings after taking note of the Valuation Report.

Summary

Issues: Challenging valuation order under Income Tax Act, 1961; Opportunity of hearing to assessee under section 142A; Validity of objections raised by petitioner; Statutory remedy available to assessee under section 142A(7).

The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Valuation Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the valuation of certain properties owned by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the valuation was done without granting him an opportunity of hearing, as required under section 142A of the Act. The respondent, represented by counsel, argued that notices were issued to the petitioner, but no objections were filed within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner claimed to have submitted objections on a specific date, but the court found discrepancies in the submission process, casting doubt on the authenticity of the objections.

The court analyzed the provisions of section 142A, which mandate providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before valuation. Despite the petitioner's reliance on a submitted objection, the court found inconsistencies in the submission process, raising doubts about the authenticity and proper filing of the objections. The court highlighted that under section 142A(7), the Assessing Officer must provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee upon receiving the valuation report. Given the disputed circumstances regarding the petitioner's claim of not being heard, the court directed the petitioner to raise objections before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings based on the Valuation Report.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to raise objections before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the statutory remedies available to the assessee under section 142A(7) and underscores the importance of following proper procedures and providing genuine opportunities for hearing in valuation matters under the Income Tax Act, 1961.